May 29, 2007

[A]t an anti-war rally at James Madison Park, Elliott Adams, national president of Veterans for Peace, described a similar "Norman Rockwell" scene from a previous Memorial Day parade and suggested the culture that allowed the Iraq war to happen is instilled in Americans at a young age.

Like the crowd of more than 300, many of them carrying signs with messages like "Bring the troops home now," Adams commemorated Memorial Day with a message of peace.

"It's a great day to end war," Adams said.

"It's a great day to honor the dead," Jim Hanson muttered audibly during the speech, adjusting his video camera.

Hanson writes for a right-wing military blog and planned to post the video of the rally online with commentary about how Memorial Day is not about war protests. His presence, however, -- and side comments -- began to attract the attention of members of the audience, some of whom intentionally stood in front of Hanson's camera and accused him of being a National Security Agency operative.

Joshua Gaines, an Iraq veteran, finally confronted Hanson. They exchanged heated words; both sides implied the other was trampling the Bill of Rights; then, as quickly as it started, the conflict cooled down as both sides backed off.

"He can be here," Gaines said later. "But don't interrupt an honorable speaker like this."

They had anti-war BS and every flavor of agit-prop, but not a single solitary moment in 2 1/2 hours mentioned the sacrifices of all the men and women since 1776 who made it possible for them to whine, and whine they did. I filmed most of it and it was drivel. If anyone has a single moment where our war dead were honored in this I will recant, 'cuz I didn't hear any, and that chafed my cones.

176 comments:

I recommend anyone to watch the "War at Home." A one sided documentary about the anti-vietnam protests in Madison during the 1960s. I remember watching it as a Freshman in the 1980s being confused as to why people would act with such disgrace towards the military. I recently saw it again and had the same reaction. Now today, where the evil of the enemy is so obviously apparent, the fact that we get the same thuggish totalitarian behavior is telling of the deranged mind of many anti-war protesters.

One of the famed anti-war protesters from the Movie, Jim Rowan, now pens a global warming blog from Madison. The anti-war left can't shake their totalitarian impulses. Moving from anti-war thuggery to demands for collective action on global warming is a natural progression.

These *ssholes, collectively, while having every right to protest, would be the absolute last persons to enlist in the defense of the nation, under all imaginable circumstances. Their hypocrisy is limitless.

Support the Troops?

They disdain the troops, hold the troops in contempt, and would never join the troops.

And we all know it, too, notwithstanding the presence of ONE Iraq veteran.

"Shaw leaned in and said "thank you" to the veteran -- a complete stranger.

"I think they need to hear more thank yous,' " Shaw said. "These guys put their lives on the line for our freedom so we can have a parade."

At the end of the parade, the veteran in the bamboo cage, Gary Foerster, of DeForest, reflected on the sustained applause from the crowd as his unit passed. As he sees it, support for the troops is only getting stronger.

"It's a different era," Foerster said. "In the 1960s, you didn't walk around in your uniform. It's changed -- hopefully for the better."

Foerster is right. The anti-war protesters, when they were young, were foolishness enough to spit at soldiers in uniform and call us "baby killers."

At least now they are more respectful, if only out of necessity, albeit more dangerous to the nation's well being now they actually hold seats in Congress.

I peripherally watched a different Memorial Day observation in Madison at the Civil War cemetery near my house. Ladies dressed in Civil War era garb, and men dressed as soldiers. I planted flowers at the family plot (that Ann has actually taken a picture of!). And when I was back at home, heard the gunfire (boy the dog hates that) and taps.

Interesting how Memorial Day has evolved from a day originally set aside to honor the Civil War dead, to a day of remembrance for all those who have died in our nation's service, to a day to rally against war.

Got to give this disloyal nut-job anti-war racaille their due: they're one of the main reasons after undergraduate school I enlisted in the army in 1968 and served in Vietnam. Protest the protesters! Thanks, guys, for the memories. . . .

Moving from anti-war thuggery to demands for collective action on global warming is a natural progression.

Let me see if I have this straight, Sloan. Advocating "collective action" to curb global warming is linked to totalitarianism and anti-military attitudes (even though the Pentagon itself recognizes global warming as a threat to national security). Sometimes your logic just astounds me.

Even if your statement were true, which it isn't, collectivism and collective action are two completely different things--look it up.

Building the interstate highway system is an example of collective action. Surely you are not accusing Eisenhower of attempting to impose a totalitarian state through the construction of the interstate highway system. Then again, he did get the idea from the Nazis, so maybe it was a nefarious plot.

We went five miles down the road to Boalsburg, the birthplace of Memorial Day, and it was wholly moonbat free. Actually, you may be interested in the pictures (for the classic car show in front of the Pennsylvania Military Museum):

His logic trumps your hubris! These America-haters are always looking for someone or something to use to weaken America. Never a positive thing to say about the U.S. they pervert our holidays to reflect their jaundiced view of our country.

Meanwhile, illegals are storming the U.S. to get into the same country bashed by the lunatic fringe.

These anarchists can find nothing sacred in our country that is positive. Except, of course, their freedom of speech to bash the country they detest. At least Cindy Sheehan has seen the light in the democratic power structure. Daily Kos says "Good Riddance" to her resignation.

Nice! Either agree with the Soros line or you are an attention whore. Speaking of attention whores, let us hope that Ward Churchill is fired soon based on recommendations from his boss at the university.

As I said in an earlier post, I think that Memorial Day ceremonies should be generic and non-political. It's a day for honoring our war dead period. Not at all focusing on the goodness of th war, the military errors made, or the political decisions.

Another example of politicized Memorial Day BS is those displays of 3,000 sets of boots in a field.. That crap doesn't honor our valiant dead, it attempts to use their sacrifice to score points.

As you attended the event at the Birthplace of Memorial Day and only traveled 4 miles, I'm assuming you teach at my (and my father's) alma mater, and my daughter's school.

Thank you. I hope professors of your persuasion aren't as rare there as I fear. My daughter avoids many problems due to her major (kinesiology science), but becomes quite disgusted when harangued in some social science courses.

Well for those vehemently opposed to the war, I can see where they think this is an appropriate setting for demonstrating against the war. In their minds, this is how they support the soldiers as they don’t want them in harms way. Personally I think it’s rather tasteless, along the lines of attending someone’s funeral who died of lung cancer and giving a eulogy on the evils of smoking. There’s a time and a place for everything.

But I still love it when the left who loves to heckle any conservative speaker, are so quick to silence anyone who has a counter view. I think that is what the eminent Tim Robbins called a chilling effect. I guess some dissent is not so patriotic after all.

People can have an honorable difference of opinion over affirmative action and seek to protest over high black crime rates - but it would be repulsive to choose to wage those protests on Martin Luther King day.

It would be tastless, beyong rude, and dishonoring MLK sure as the Lefties dishonor all who have fought for America and served since our nation's birth to score cheap political points.

The "progressive" jerks from John Edwards down that see cynical opportunism in exploiting Memorial Day to advance their politics.

They are so into their anti-war, anti-American hatred that they actually tried pretending there conduct was excused because "We are just mourning the terrible Iraqi death toll, which is now over 1,030 since last Memorial Day". We want our children home so we have less people to mourn.

The people serving in Iraq are not children.

But they completely ignore "honoring or supporting" the troops lost in Afghanistan (390), those lost in Stateside or Iraq non-combat accidents, suicides, illnesses in the last 5 years (3,980). As Jules Crittendon pointed out in a recent article about AP leading with the idea that Memorial Day was a natural focus of the 1000+ dead in Iraq since the last Memorial Day. Actual combat deaths in Iraq are around 2500.

And not a word about "the unbearable cost of dead troops we love so much (the Lefties savor those death counts)" in past wars. 660,000 in the Civil War when we had 1/5th the population, 420,000 in WWII when we had less than half our present population

The treacherous little totalitarians also ignore that we lost more people in the peacetime military under Jimmy Carter (around 2400 a year) than under Bush II since 2003. A safety and accident record that began turning around once Reagan began modernizing the military and the troops no longer died in failed, antiquated aircraft, vessels, or in accidents related to the sloppy safety and lack of professionalism that existed in the post-Vietnam military.

Each year in America, 3400-3775 people die in motorcycle accidents. Quadruple the losses in Iraq from all causes.

Each year in America, 78-95,000 Americans die of medical mistakes or misadventures.

Each year in America, more people choke to death on food than die by the hand of Islamoids in Iraq.

******************Memorial Day is not just for those killed in recent combat, but for all soldiers who die serving the nation from all causes. It is for all the Vets that served and sacrificed - in some cases beyond most civilians comprehension - and made it home and died of other causes with records of honor, bravery, tremendous accomplishment.

34 million Americans wore the uniform. All served. Save for a few that dishonored their uniform and oath of service - we should honor ALL of them on Memorial Day.

I just put up a post that pretty much summarizes as articulately as I can the basic view of a war opponent on the fundamental question before us:

I read another editorial today about how supporting the troops means supporting the mission (and the President.)

I beg to differ.

And I don't just mean differ by the standard liberal response of pointing to cuts made by fiscal conservatives in veteran's programs or the lack of support that some severely wounded vets have received once they were no longer useful to the military. True, supporting the troops means supporting them after they return home, and true that we should continue to call conservatives on their lack of support for veterans where we can point to it, but that argument used by itself as a definition of 'supporting the troops' becomes a dodge of the main issue that is front and center today, which is whether to support the war in Iraq as it is being fought today.

Supporters of the war (who in many cases honestly, though wrongly, believe that fighting it is the right thing to do) want, it seems, for people who now question the war to just 'sit down, shut up and wave a flag.' They will claim that any dissent is undercutting the troops. And if we don't confront that argument head-on, then we end up making their point for them, looking weak, cowardly and stupid no matter how much we might suggest be spent on the V.A.

What it really boils down to is whether, if we believe that our country is wrong, we should support its foreign policy anyway.

Ultimately you have to look at yourself then and ask what is 'right.' Nations make mistakes, or worse, calculated decisions to do what might be considered wrong or morally indefensible for reasons of pure greed or aggrandizement (though they will always have some spurious logic to justify it at the time), and the United States is neither immune nor historically devoid of such decisions. Right now I am sitting in territory that was ripped away from Mexico after what amounted to an outright war of conquest between 1846 and 1848. Do I believe we should return it? No, and frankly if I did then it would be about returning it to the Native Americans and not the Mexicans anyway. The reason why I don't support returning it is that the people who live here now had nothing to do with whatever wrong was perpetrated in 1848 (or before that), and ultimately to return it in order to repent of the sins of the country which elected James K. Polk would mean displacing people who are here now, from their land where they may have grown up and perhaps have several generations of their family buried on. And as we look at events like the Trail of tears, the abrogation of the treaty Thomas Jefferson signed with the Nez Perce and the pursuit of Chief Joseph, the Bosque Redondo or Wounded Knee, it is hard to argue that the United States was in the right on any of these cases. And I do believe that we should do a better job of providing to Native Americans the same benefits that most other Americans enjoy (see my last post) and rectify where we can find them the direct consequences of such past injustices, but I don't believe that as people who live today, we should try to undo the past-- the past is the past and trying to recreate history differently is bound to fail.

So then the next question becomes, does Patriotism trump our essential knowledge and recognition of right and wrong?

Let's answer that by supposing (a purely hypothetical scenario) that the U.S. President were actually ordering the unthinkable. Suppose that the President (not necessarily this President, but assume it was a President of your party and who you had voted for) announced that he wanted to unilaterally (with no provocation at all) launch nuclear warheads at every major city on the planet, say to give humanity a chance to do a better job of advancing from medieval times (or some other equally irrational reason.) Obviously, the man would be daft, but the question is, if you were such a supporter of the President in our scenario, would you support him even when he made what was obviously a disastrously wrong decision?

If you answer that yes, then you are in effect saying that you have replaced your own ability (or perhaps your ability enhanced by the spirit of God) to decide what is good and what is evil and act on it, with the chief executive's decision which you will follow blindly. Maybe then the anti=Christ is closer than we think, he'd just have to arrange to get himself elected President and he'd have his hordes of followers. If you answer no, that you would not, then you have at least acknowleged that it is at least possible to conjure up an (admittedly very extreme) scenario in which you would refuse to support the policy that the President was pushing forward.

Now, the question becomes, what if you see your country doing something less wrong than that, but still wrong? Do you still refuse to do it? And therein lies the rub. During the Nuremburg trials, several defendants tried to excuse their actions by saying they were 'just following orders.' All of them were found guilty, because they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.

If you believe, honestly, that starting a war was the 'right' way to handle the situation that then existed in Iraq (say for the sake of argument, than no one questioned the intelligence at the time-- which would be about 95% accurate-- only Jacques Chirac and a handful of others publically questioned it in early 2003) and proceded on that assumption), then you might not buy my belief that actually going to war was still the 'wrong' way to handle the situation, but even if that is the case, understand that there are many people (not just liberals) who believe that war should always be a last resort, only after all diplomatic or even covert options have been tried and exhausted, and that even then it should be carefully measured by weighing the continuation of the status quo against such considerations as how many lives it will cost and what the consequences might be of losing, and not be rushed into by ratcheting up the rhetoric to try and stampede the public into supporing it (which Iraq, quite frankly was). Many people also believe that starting a war is a moral wrong (as opposed to, for example, the war in Afghanistan, which was a necessary and unavoidable self-defense consequence of 9/11, which in effect is when it began.)

How much choosing 'wrong' can be excused by blind patriotism? If you see your country doing something which you believe is wrong, then I would posit that you still have an obligation to speak up in opposition, no matter what the transgression is. Even if you believed at one time that it was right but come to the realization that it is wrong, you have to speak up (as some of Bush's generals have.)

Because if you know it's wrong, and you continue to support it (or remain silent) anyway then you deserve to be called a coward, not a patriot.

Well, I could cite a myriad of examples of collective actions (that are not collectivism), both domestic and international that regulate our economic lives from the mundane like postal, placarding of trucks and customs regulations to international trade and environmental agreements like NAFTA, the UCC, international shipment of hazardous wastes, acid rain, whaling, nuclear proliferation and the hunting of migratory birds (our treaty on migratory birds with Canada is one of the oldest around).

Madison Man: You're awfully close on the ice cream comment. Meyer's ice cream is indeed otherwordly; the only place you can find better is to step onto the campus itself. I'm sure Rightwing Prof will agree.

People can have an honorable difference of opinion over affirmative action and seek to protest over high black crime rates - but it would be repulsive to choose to wage those protests on Martin Luther King day.

This is a great analogy. Everyone knows that most on the Left despise those in the military anyways - they see people in the military as idiots for signing up to go to Iraq.

The Left only constantly reminds us of the death toll because they know that we care about them.

Everyone knows that most on the Left despise those in the military anyways

As witnessed by anti-war signs that read "We Support Out Troops When They Kill Their Officers". Or "Maimed For A Lie" outside of Walter Reed. Almost every claim from the Left is a buthead statement: "we support the troops but...

They don't give a damn about us. Not unless they can use our corpse as a prop to forward some anti-war statement.

Tell that to the Spanish who caved to the terrorists after one of their trains was blown up. Seems as how the terrorists perceived, correctly, that electing an appeaser after the tragedy was a sign of weakness.

The Spanish are now closing down several cells that were planning further destruction in the face of true cowardice! The Spanish gave peace a chance and were shocked to find it encouraged the terrorists.

France and Germany seem to be turning against the appeasers and apologists in Europe. When are the anarchists in this country going to see the light? 9/11 obviously fell on your deaf ears. What will it take to change your mind?

Meanwhile, Mexican trucks are beginning to enter the U.S. with minimal inspections regarding cargo, maintenance, etc. That should make you sleep well at night!

Why did we invade Afganistan? They didn't attack us. Why did we attack the Taliban? They were no threat to America. Their only sin was providing support and sanctuary to terrorist organizations. If you're going to invade Afganistan on such pretenses, why aren't you invading Iraq. Iran and Syria?

Cyrus: referring to the anti-war commenters as "copperheads" and "traitors."

There's a distinction. Posters like MadisonMan and others oppose the war on principle. I disagree with them but I do not question their love for this country and the people that defend them.

OTOH, the Copperheads oppose the war out of partisan spite, simply to bloody Bush's nose. And they sabatoge our troops in harm's way: leaking intel, falsely accusing troops of war crimes, providing comfort and propaganda aid to the enemy, demanding withdrawal when AQ bullies them by blowing up innocents [which only encourages more of the same], tie the troops hands behind their backs with naive rules about the ROE and interrogation, etc. All for political gain. For the Copperhead traitors, Party trumps Nation.

Find me a Leftist quote giving unequivocal support of our troops, without bashing Bush or questioing Iraq. Find me a Democrat who gave a speech honoring our soldier's sacrifice without making some political statement on Iraq. I can post hundreds of examples that are contrary, if need be.

I've seen the anti-war protesters with my own eyes. Seen them on the Mall [I work in DC, remember] with their hateful signs accusing our troops of all manner of obscenities.

In general, please tell me exactly how is this different from the way "the right" heckles liberal speakers?

Oh please... what a garbage statement. Lets see... Do conservatives have a long tradition of forming mobs and acting like thugs at events? I don't think so. Only totalitarians on the Left rely on such tactics.

Maybe you mean how the right had a conspiracy to silence the Dixie Chicks by not playing their songs on country radio? How horrible!

The Left does not believe in free speech, they only want it until they are in power. The Left is also not interested in the truth. To the Left, the truth is merely manipulated propaganda designed to play on peoples time-honored traditions; traditions such as supporting the American military. This is why the Left attempts to rationalize that being anti-american at home is supporting the troops abroad. Hopefully most Americans see through this.

How could communicating to the terrorists that we want defeat ever be supporting the troops. That's lunacy.

Fen - 11:01 AM.Fen, Fen, Fen! You can't just slam all Democrats as unpatriotic. Plenty support the military and say so in unequivocable terms. They have a problem internally between the American Democrats and the Hard Left Copperhead Democrats that loathe America. Then again, the Republicans have the Open Borders, corrupt corporate crony fatcats of Bush at war with traditional Republicans.

Who do we Republicans love? Former FDR loyalist, former Hollywood Democrat, and a staunch union head who had a ton of gay friends - Ronald Reagan. Who do we want to see come back the the Republicans after the Bush disaster? Reagan Democrats!

******************ORCAS ISLAND, Wash. (AP) - Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday. Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

The San Juan sheriff termed it a hate crime, not a "free speech issue".

Just another Lefty method of "supporting the troops". Burning the flag and planting swastikas on the graves of dead Vets.

It's a small island, only around 4,000 people. Here's hoping the islanders who know their meighbors better than most communities do - can track down and arrest the Copperheads in their midst.

BTW Cyrus, instead of indulging yourself in the role of contrarian [and since you're always demanding Americans be forced to "sacrifice"], perhaps you could salvage 30 minutes of your day to craft a memorial post to our fallen. You're an excellent wordsmith, and you claim to support the troops, so I look forward to your response. Make it sing.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dramatically underestimated the number of deaths of US Armed Service-members in the Iraq War.

"When you take a look at the life of a nation and all that's required to keep us free, we had more than 3,000 Americans murdered on 11 September, 2001. The number who have died, sacrificed themselves since that time is approaching that number," General Pace told CBS Early Show's Harry Smith.

We passed the 3,000 level months ago...and AGAIN...what does Iraq have to do with 9/11???

You too Lucky & HdHouse & Freder. You guys are always insisting you support the troops. Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Lets hear it. Compose a memorial tribute to the all the troops who have sacrificed themselves to protect the values of the Enlightement and the Bill of Rights. Remember, your silence will be damning...

In fact, its an open invitation to all our anti-war posters. A day late and a dollar short, but still a chance to express your thankfulness for the freedoms so many take for granted. Step up and give us your best prose.

I really don't think that the public will forget that anti-war protestors hold the positions they do if, just for one day (OK, add Veterans Day and make that two) they set those positions aside to give unqualified honor to those who fight.

Indeed, in my view it would make the cause all the more palatable were they to put down their protest signs for those 24 (48) hours, and pick them right back up again the next day. How about a pair of bookend protests---one to end on the midnight before, the next to start the midnight afterwards. I am sure the press would be willing to cover it.

And can anybody here please explain how Fen, Sloan and others continue to connect Iraq or our invasion of Iraq...with 9/11?

Lucky, are you so deaf that you have not heard this explained to you a hundred thousand times... or do you just keep repeating it in the hopes that someone will assume your question is rhetorical.

I will answer it again. 9-11 was a wake up call to us that we have to take threats seriously - that we can't just sit around and wait for someone to nuke us. The number one threat in the region and the world was Saddam Hussein. He was given a chance to comply with the UN resolutions. He chose to defy the UN. The only alternative was force.

There is another reason why we are still there after the fall of Saddam. The terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 moved from Afghanistan to Iraq. They attack us every day in Iraq.

ncg,I agree with your premise, but as your know...the key to garnering an audience...is to take advantage of the situation.

Personally, I went to a BBQ and spent the day with friends, all basically staying away from any arguments or heated discussions regarding Iraq, etc. We all have friends and relatives who served or are serving and appreciate their dedication and valor.

I think it's our current administration's decision making that most are disgusted with.

There are WMD and asshole dictators all over the world...and that also has nothing to do with 9/11.

Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. Have you forgotten this? Eisenhower was right. Let some time go by and people will start denying the truth.

Saddam had attacked at some time in the last 20 years almost everyone of his neighbors. He desired WMD and had tried to hide his production of it. His totalitarian control over his country gave him concentrated wealth greater than the defense budgets of the major european countries. His control over that wealth gave him greater power than any individual in the world including in many ways the Presdident of the U.S. The fallout from the oil for food scandal showed that Saddam was able to split opposition against him in the UN. The world body was powerless to do anything to Saddam. Saddam was bribing UN employees, politicians in many countries, bribing news stations, etc..

Saddam was the most dangerous individual in the world. He needed to be crushed. Even today no one compares to Saddams unique position. In Iran no individual really completely controls the government - power is shared among the clerics and the secular groups. Kim Jong Il has no money. Hugo Chavez is on his way, but he still needs many years.

I agree with your premise, but as your know...the key to garnering an audience...is to take advantage of the situation.

I agree, but I just don't think pissing on Memorial Day is "taking advantage" of anything. It's just dumb. But I'm not telling them to shut up; in my view my proposal is a more effective way to dissent, politically speaking at least.

I mean, it's like observing a moment of silence for someone who, say, killed themselves drunk driving. You can still observe the silence, and save your "he had it coming" comments for when it's over. There is a time for both. Likewise, actions and statements that communicate that "he'd still be alive if it weren't for that idiot Bush and his evil cronies" can probably wait a few hours, too.

Honoring fallen warriors is not about the rightness of any cause. Honoring Confederate soldiers does not require hashing over the rightness of slavery or leaving the Union. Honoring Union soldiers does not require proving that their cause was just.

Honoring fallen warriors isn't about the idiot commander who got his men killed uselessly or about the brilliant commander who accomplished more than thought possible with the lives he was given.

It's not about making some determination which soldier died heroically or which one died stupidly, which one had a gun in his hand facing forward or which threw his weapon down and died running away, which death was worthy or which was not.

Which war was worthy or which was not.

Those who take Memorial Day and make it into a protest over *this* uselessness have, indeed, pissed on those soldiers who served and who died when ever and where ever they served and died, and particularly on those who have died in this conflict. Nothing about this war diminishes their sacrifice or the gratitude we owe them.

Even *if* this war is wrong.

I don't believe so, but even *if* every bit uttered by an anti-war protester is pure truth, making a war protest out of Memorial Day is the worst sort of disrespect.

And quite clearly the protesters don't care about disrespecting the dead if they can use them.

Hoosier, I don't think the behavior you note is one-sided, as your post suggests. In fact, I'm surprised these comments came from you, as you are one of the more fair-minded commenters here.

I agree that heckling goes on both sides of the aisle but in my opinion I have seen a whole lot more on the left, particularly on college campuses where conservative speakers are constantly heckled. I’ve been to a few over the last few years and have seen this firsthand. Perhaps it’s anecdotal evidence on my part. Neither side has clean hands on this so you do make a good point.

Mybe, instead of becoming overly concerned with who did or did not honor our military correctly, we should consider this:

When he announced the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security in 2002, President Bush invoked the fight against "terror" or "terrorists" 19 times in a single speech.

That's more mentions than there have been terrorism charges brought by the department in the last three years, according to an independent analysis of DHS records.

The department brought terrorism claims against only 12 of 814,073 individuals charged in immigration courts, according to the study from the Transactional Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the department's caseload, according to the first-of-its-kind study.

Saddam was trapped like a rat from 1991- 2003. He had NO WMD and NO chemical wagons...period.

Your arguments are so tired.

You forget that in 1995, Saddam's brother in law defected and revealed all of Saddam's WMD programs that had not been found yet by the inspectors. Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. Do you think it would be too much to assume that Saddam was probably making WMDs again by 2002? How naive!

Also, everyone knows that the sanctions against Saddam were falling apart. You think Russia and China would have continued to support us in Iraq. What a joke! Do you think after the sanctions were dropped Saddam would have stayed nuclear free - even in the face of his mortal enemy Iran prducing nukes. You must be a complete idiot.

Also, Libya disarmed as a result of the Iraq invasion. Are you telling me that Libya would have revealed their programs, of which we knew nothing about without the invasion of Iraq?

What happened to your liberal heart. What about the 500,000 bodies in mass graves. You think Saddam would have stopped the mass killings?

The department brought terrorism claims against only 12 of 814,073 individuals charged in immigration courts, according to the study from the Transactional Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Those 12 cases represent 0.0015 percent of the department's caseload, according to the first-of-its-kind study.

You forgot to mention that we haven't been attacked again in almost 6 years.

I like your question. Where is Osama Bin Ladin. Where are his 10,000 trained terrorists in the 50 countries in cells around the world.... where are all the attacks he promised in America. How come no one sees Osama walking around. How come he doesn't make any more tapes.

The only place Osama is winning this war is in the minds of the liberals in this country. Lets hope that he needs to do more than that.

Lucky says for the 100000 time We were attacked (HERE) in 1993...but not again until 2001. (Since you evidently can't add...that would be 8 years.)

So for the 100000 time... Except that Al Qaeda didn't much exist in 1993. They had no training camps, no cells no nothing. On 9-11 they were at their height of power, they controlled almost all of afghanistan, they had 10,000 trained terrorists in 50 countries. In 1993, they were little bigger than Timothy McVeigh

Paul Wolfowitz may have been ousted from his post at the World Bank, but a free-speaking GOP lawmaker has an idea to keep the so-called "architect" of the Iraq War from standing in the unemployment line.

"I would like to suggest...that maybe we give Paul Wolfowitz a new job and send him over [to Iraq] as mayor," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., "since the neocons got us in over there."

I'm all for it...and he can take his girlfriend with him...although I hear they've split.

Anytime I see someone make an argument that contains "without losing a single American life" I know without a doubt that they are, well, they are a whole lot of things.

It's offensive, racist, morally vacant,...

Defining right and wrong by American lives is abhorrent.

To paraphrase a young man in uniform... "You get orders to go to Iraq and you think, what's the point of this? But you get here and find out that the people, they're real people, just like in the States."

If it wasn't Americans dying, it was still people, real people dying.

What we should do about that varies, but the argument that American lives are a significantly important part of that decision is nothing less than abhorrent.

Lucky: Fen, you are as dumb as a fucking stump: "10 American soldiers died in roadside bombings and a helicopter crash on Memorial Day"

My point was that an average of 464 American civilians die in traffic accidents each Memorial Day weekend. If the media harped on that 464 the way they harp on soldier's deaths 10, you'd be afraid to get in your car.

Lucky: Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

We never said he did. Its your side that keeps bringing up that strawman. BTW, why did we attack Germany, they had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pearl Harbor...

Problem is you're simply too stupid to understand basic logic. I'll simplify it for you: A crack house opens up down the street from your house, and one of the druggies kills your family for cash. You would destroy that crack house, but ignore another two blocks away because they had nothing to do with killing your family?

Lucky: He had NO WMD and NO chemical wagons...period

500 WMDs were found in Iraq - arty shells containing Sarin and Mustard Gas. So your assertion is either willfully ignorant or deliberately dishonest.

And Hoosier is being too kind. Its not a question of who "heckles" public speakers more, its that liberal Democrats go beyond that and try to shut down speech they disagree with. There's a huge difference.

Fen,i think you should immediately send this off to the families of the ten who died in Iraq:

"My point was that an average of 464 American civilians die in traffic accidents each Memorial Day weekend. If the media harped on that 464 the way they harp on soldier's deaths 10, you'd be afraid to get in your car."

*and be sure to include a nice note...i'm sure they'll appeciate the thought...and comparison.

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here’s what the administration’s own inspectors reported:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

try reading "fiasco" by thomas ricks...it will open your eyes and mind.

The problem with Ricks' book is that you can make the same types of arguments for any complicated entanglement. From a consistent point of view, World War II was a horrible fiasco from start to end. The guns of August are considered folly today from one point of view, however, from another the guns of august was the inevitable battle between statist Germany and Liberal Britain. Iraq may fall into the same category.

There is a chasm for critics to drive through regarding Iraq and anyone with the benefit of hindsight can drive.

Our policy makers sometimes have to operate in the dark with many moving parts - including not knowing what the enemy will or will not do. Truman is a considered a hero today for the Berlin Airlift. However, the Airlift would be considered a "fiasco" today if the Soviets would have invaded West Germany. They would have crushed us.

What we do know is that we have not been attacked since 9-11. We know that Al Qaeda wants to attack us, but they are bogged down in Iraq too. Unlike the cold war we were never sure that the Soviets wanted to attack us... we were never sure. Al Qaeda, however, has been clear. They want to attack us, but have failed

11:47 AM: instead of indulging yourself in the role of contrarian... perhaps you could salvage 30 minutes of your day to craft a memorial post to our fallen. You're an excellent wordsmith, and you claim to support the troops, so I look forward to your response. Make it sing.

11:56: You guys are always insisting you support the troops. Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Lets hear it. Compose a memorial tribute to the all the troops who have sacrificed themselves to protect the values of the Enlightenment and the Bill of Rights. Remember, your silence will be damning...

11:58 AM: open invitation to all our anti-war posters...a chance to express your thankfulness for the freedoms so many take for granted. Step up and give us your best prose.

Take note. Almost 5 hours now and not a single word from our anti-war lefties who insist they support the troops. Remember this the next time they weasel away with I support the troops but....

Surely there's some Leftist out there who appreciates what the fallen have done for him, at least enough to post a few lines of tribute? Still counting the minutes. tic toc tic toc

I went to a fabulous new restaurant in the Back Bay of Boston for Memorial Day. The restaurant is called "Eat"-isn't that pretentious? It was a major scene. Everyone was eating outside and the crowd was on fire. I had cornish game hens with foi gras and it was delish. I would of been a PETA members nightmare date.

It was a "Prada" dinner with my friends and we all had to wear one Prada item. Leave it to Leslie to come to dinner wearing Prada from head to toe-she always has to one up everyone. Even her dam handbag and wallet was Prada but she did look fierce. She has finally made it down to a size 0 and we were all loving her for her being so thin. Her dinner was lettuce and cigarettes.

We then walked around Beacon Hill and into a new club for tea dance and after tea dance at some club on the harbor-which was cool. It felt like we were dancing on the ocean with the city in front of us. The city was teaming with gorgeous, thin europeanish people. It is really fabulous out here. Wish you were here!

Next weekend begins my summer share in Ptown and my abs are not ready. I will not be eating this week. Paradise at the tip of the country here I come. It will be good to run into John Waters, Andrew Sullivan and Michael Cunningham though soon.

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here’s what the administration’s own inspectors reported:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Lucky: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered

Quite different from your assertion He had NO WMD and NO chemical wagons...period yes?

And some of these 500 WMDs were found stored in underground warehouses. You think Saddam just forgot about them?

And whats the separation "No WMD and No chemical weapons"? You are aware that WMDs are nuclear, biological, and chemical [NBC] right? I hope this isn't another slip revealing your ignorance, like when you claimed Bush invaded because he thought those aluminum tubes were meant for missiles, instead of enriching uranium. That was sad, but funny. People who mix up conventional weapons with WMD really shouldn't be speaking on the subject.

a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

ISG also found Saddam sought to restart is WMD programs once scrutiny and sanctions were lifted.

Lucky: He had NO WMDs. Period

Here's what you left out of your ISG quote:

In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. The discoveries made by the ISG include a "clandestine network of laboratories . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research" and vials of "live C botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced."

Its the same old analogy. You're worried you kid is doing drugs. You search his room [after arguing with your wife/UN for six months about it, and after giving the kid 24 hours notice]:

1) You find a growlight and soil in the back of his closet - he claims its for a potted fern, even though the fern would be better served by the [empty] and sunlit window ledge.

2) You find a pipe, always bleached clean so no residue can be tested, along with fresh screens [never used ones that can be tested]. He claims the pipe is for tobacco, even though he always buys filtered Marbs instead.

There's more circumstantial evidence, but you didn't find any stockpiles of weed. So you blithely carry on with claims that your kid isn't doing drugs. Dumbass.

Of course. But I'm giving you guys on the Left an extra day, because I know so many were away on holiday or somesuch. Why is it so hard for you lefties to craft a few lines honoring those that have fallen to protect your rights? You express your free speech here everyday, and you can't take 15 minutes to compose a Memorial Day Tribute? But you support the troops....riiiight.

Victor: I've never really recall anyone "celebrating" memorial day - other than having the obligatory bbq. It feels mighty awkward to start now.

It really is your loss that you don't recall anyone celebrating it. There are organized celebrations in many towns across the country, including the one I live in. From my perspective they are usually simple, humble, and moving. They really don't glorify war, just those who have fought and died in them.

But I can understand the akwardness. Don't just start breaking out a bottle of champagne or a tri-tip or anything. Put a note on your calendar next year, a week before Memorial Day 2008, to find the nearest small-town celebration, and go. Feel free to combine the trip with a visit to a nearby lake or other vacation spot.

If you find the festivities don't suit you, no big deal. You don't have to go again. But hopefully you will at least appreciate the genuine value some people place in those celebrations, and you'll understand why some of us sincerely wish that those who insist on pissing on them would pound sand for just 24 hours.

hoosier,actually it was the "neocons" who were the architects of the iraqi invasion, not those who voted to authorize.

Oh so there are no neocons in Congress and those that voted yes can absolve themselves by blaming Wolfowitz and company? That's rich.

maybe if you read more and listened to rush or sean less...

What makes you think I listen to them? Kinda funny statement considering I was opposed to Iraq from day one.

*as to your other comments regarding those poor right wingers getting hecked:

what do you think is more important?

left or right wingers being heckled...by whoever...or the secret service denying entrance to a function involving the president of the united states...because of a bumper sticker??

Um...importance is irrelevant. If someone is coming to a function with the sole purpose to heckle then, right or left, they should be denied entrance. You don't have a right to go heckle someone. And again, what does that have to do with the posts I made?

Hold on a sec, your man Cyrus is always complaining that Americans aren't forced to "sacrifice" for the war. I ask you to compose some sort of memorial day tribute for those you claim you support, and you're leaving to play golf?

Remember, by your own logic - if you can't find your golfball in the woodline, then it never existed to begin with...

fen, I would think that Ann's interactions with Dave would teach you: You can't force people to blog about stuff (Incidentally, where is your Memorial Day tribute?), and absence of mention means nought.

pete the streak: I haven't liked Creamery Ice Cream ever since my across-the-street neighbor's cousin Reba stopped working there (this is before they built the soul-less new Creamery). She always gave me extra big helpings. I don't think my kids have ever had Creamery Ice Cream, but they adore Meyer's.

I would think that Ann's interactions with Dave would teach you: You can't force people to blog about stuff

I'm not asking them to blog. Just write a few lines of appreciation in place of their usual bs. You'd think I asked them to induce vomiting [which is likely how they feel on the subject]

Incidentally, where is your Memorial Day tribute?

All over this blog, back from when I started posting here. And I'm not the one insisting I support the troops while undermining their efforts. Its the Left that insists they support the troops, but.... Here's a chance for them to back that up, and they've all run away.

You too Lucky & HdHouse & Freder. You guys are always insisting you support the troops. Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Lets hear it. Compose a memorial tribute to the all the troops who have sacrificed themselves to protect the values of the Enlightement and the Bill of Rights. Remember, your silence will be damning...

You know Fen, you are a scumbag. Not as bad as Cedarford, but still a scumbag. I don't have to do anything to satisfy you. Not that it really matters, because nothing I do will satisfy you. I defy you to find one post by me, on this or any other blog where I implicitly or explicitly denigrated the uniformed military.

But for the record, my great-grandfather was killed on the Somme and my grandfather served for two years in the trenches in World War I. My uncle was in the Navy in World War II and my father was in the Air Force after World War II. They were all in the British Military, but at least they were on the right side. My wife is an O-4 in the Army. She has already done two tours in Kuwait and will be going to either Afghanistan or Iraq for another year as soon as January. Her father was in the Marine Corps for 23 years and served two tours in Vietnam (he earned a battlefield commission on his second tour). I am extremely proud of all of them.

I think much of the debate between Fen and Lucky about what history will say who was wrong 4-5 years ago about rationale for doing the Iraq War is sterile.

Historians may conclude Saddam tried the dumbest bluff in history. They may conclude it was the end of the belief that intelligence agencies are all-knowing. They may decide Bush was wrong and we should have gone for 25 UN Resolutions instead of just 17 telling Saddam to knock it off.

But the point is the war has been long underway, and the constant debate about who thought what when years back is as sterile as Americans and Japanese arguing if the Pacific conflict was the fault of 19th Century colonialism, Japan's militarist aims in China, the Oil & Raw Materials Embargo Europe and America stuck on Japan, or Pearl Harbor.

In 1944, those arguments were still lively, but at that stage, utterly pointless. The war was on and had been for a long time.

The debate, if anything, should move ahead 5 years. What do we do now? My vote is to see if the Surge works some, then if it doesn't, to withdraw and still accept the same light casualties we have taken for the past few years, lighter still, but definitely in the 100s a year if we wish to safeguard Kurdistan, work a deal with the Turks, and stay ready to drop the hammer on Iran if they try and take over Iraq. And work to rebuild the damage to the military and to diplomacy Bush and his detractors have done to us.

************** Luckyoldson said... Fen,i think you should immediately send this off to the families of the ten who died in Iraq:

"My point was that an average of 464 American civilians die in traffic accidents each Memorial Day weekend. If the media harped on that 464 the way they harp on soldier's deaths 10, you'd be afraid to get in your car."

*and be sure to include a nice note...i'm sure they'll appeciate the thought...and comparison.

I can't begin to tell you how insipid the "TELL IT TO THE ALMIGHTY VICTIM FAMILIES!!!" argument is.

The people in the military are not "little children in uniform needing Nanny Pelosi to care for them". They are, or were, adults. People die in war. Bush didn't kill them. Islamoids did. Get used to that fact.

Families that think their adult offspring are off to a safe job when they volunteer for the military where they are told up front that the job has unique lethal risks, after they assign life insurance beneficiaries and make out their Wills in boot camp - and after all that, if they die in an accident or combat and parents of spouses contend SOMEBODY other than the Islamoid that killed them are responsible - the "victim families" are clueless.

2.4 million people die in America every year. More people died in the military each year of Carter's Presidency and I don't remember Lefties "who support the troops soooo much!!" running around and blubbering on cue for cameras or setting up their cute little boot cemeteries replete with signs calling Carter a "murderer".

Many of those deaths are tragic, terrible, many arguably preventable with better societal decisions and resources allocated...and not just the military ones used as propaganda tools for the Lefts cherished, and savored over daily, "Iraq Death Count".

The casualties we have taken in Iraq are very light compared to past wars. Light compared to the hazard posed in Carter's broken, antiquated peacetime military.

And only a few hundred higher than the Clinton "peacetime" military deaths.

My point was that an average of 464 American civilians die in traffic accidents each Memorial Day weekend. If the media harped on that 464 the way they harp on soldier's deaths 10, you'd be afraid to get in your car.

Talk about disrespecting our soldiers, let's just diminish their sacrifice. Anyhow genius, which is a bigger fraction 10 out of 150,000 or 464 out of 300 million?

No Freder, the disrespect comes from those who sensationalize the deaths of our soldiers for political gain. Take a deep breath, regain your bearing. I know you're ticked that I outed you on your torture hypocrisy, but like you said, you don't owe me anything; you owe the fallen everything. How about a few words in their honour?

Fen says: "the disrespect comes from those who sensationalize the deaths of our soldiers for political gain."

oh, really?

and would you consider any of the following to be an example of BUSH "sensationalizing" the iraqi invasion and ongoing quagmire in a "political" manner...to further their specific point of view?

CNN May 24, 2007:• President draws comparison between Iraq and Vietnam wars• Bush uses bin Laden intelligence to defend U.S. military presence in Iraq• Bin Laden wanted to set up Iraq base for international attacks, White House says• Bush discusses foiled aviation plots against the U.S.

Chicago Tribune October 11, 2006:Bush, disputing the number of civilian/military deaths in iraq...• Going into the mid-term elections with his party low in the polls, he doesn't want to give credence to anything that indicates the situation in Iraq could be far worse than he's been saying.

SOTU Speech 2005:• The "hug" between Bush and an Iraqi woman who voted on Sunday and the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq.

she also doesn't understand that every time the iraqis hear about 100 of their fellow iraqis being killed...it's the same as americans hearing that 1,300 americans have been killed.

That might hold more weight if it wasn't the Iraqis blowing each other up. Now I know ammo stores have been depleted but I don't think, the US military is using suicide bombing of marketplaces as a tactic.

Despite the best efforts of our troops the Iraqis were given a chance for a free society they opted for killing each other. That's what sullies the whole thing despite Iraq being a strategic error in the overall war on Islamofascism.

Back to one of your earlier comments about the highway system that Eisenhower started, that was created as an element of the national defense. It was not created to make it easier for people to travel across the country. At the time we were in the early stages of the Cold War and this was shortly after the Rosenbergs and the other communist spies were outed and sentenced. We did not know what the Soviet Union had planned or what it would do. To allow the military to get where it might need to be as expeditiously as possible Eisenhower and his team came up with the interstate highway system. As far as I remember the defense of the country is a federal function and that is what caused it to happen.

hoosier,the "reasoning" behind why the iraqis think all of their fellow citizens are dying (a majority says it's because of...us...being there) has nothing to do with "who's doing it," it has to do with the fact that they're DEAD.

Are you less saddened by the oklahoma bombing because an american did it?

You see, Fen, the world isn't just a big game of 'risk' where you fight until everyone else is eliminated.

War begets... more war.

I very reluctantly supported (and continue to support) the invasion of Afghanistan because I couldn't see what other alternatives we had.

I do not support the invasion of Iraq, and for that matter, our putting Afghanistan on the back burner while we invaded Iraq has allowed the situation there to deteriorate to the point that if it gets ignored much longer we might have to start talking about withdrawal there too. And I hope it doesn't happen, but it seems that the ineptness and bungling that have characterized our policy, both at home and abroad, has reached Afghanistan.

I think there is time to still recover there, but only if we forget Iraq and get refocused exclusively on Afghanistan.

our putting Afghanistan on the back burner while we invaded Iraq has allowed the situation there to deteriorate to the point that if it gets ignored much longer we might have to start talking about withdrawal there too

One could argue, however, that Afghanistan would have been the Iraq of today but for Iraq. After the Soviets invaded, tens of thousands of arabs flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Bin Ladin is the obvious example. Today these arabs go to Iraq instead, its much easier to get to.

Victory in Afghanistan would be very difficult if the jihadis went there instead. Supporting an Army in Afghainstan is much more difficult - there is no port. There is no safe way to supply an army of any significant size there.

Essentially the only way to be victorious in Afganistan in the long term was to invade Iraq.

After watching this video one thing that did stand out is everyone is fat in Wisconsin.

I am from Wisconsin (but left years ago) and sometimes forget about it but Wisconsin really does have a weight problem. If you look at most of them the weight starts at about the neck and ends at about the thighs and in between is this huge mass of fat. Liberals, conservatives you name it the weight thing obviously isn't a political attribute.The anti-war guys the hummer on the bike you name it-fat.

I guess it is too much beer and all you can eat beer battered fish fry-

Not to go off too much on the weight and looks thing but it must be a bitch for someone like you Ann.

You are attractive, successful, etc. but I bet it would be intimidating or difficult for you to find an interesting man out there. The accent alone drives me crazy. So reminds me of Fargo.Sadly, after I moved out here I started correctly my parents when I would come home. Yes, some parts of Boston have an accent but the accent is generally in certain areas (north/south shore), not generally in the city.

That was one of the reasons I left. I needed a bigger pond with a more variety of fish. I like a lot of variety and lot of international fish. I like to learn about other cultures mentally and physically. Sadly, Wisconsin was lacking in the diversity area.

You will have an amazing ocean this summer to go fishing in. Perhaps, it could be a fruitful year for you in NYC>

Given that it's now May 30, the "traditional" Memorial Day, here are some thoughts in which at least some of you might be interested, written by someone who spends (and has spent for many years) a great deal of time immersed in history of various forms, and who has written on this topic before.

(Nope [and/or never fear, depending]: it's not a post of mine, and I'm not talking about myself.)

hoosier,the "reasoning" behind why the iraqis think all of their fellow citizens are dying (a majority says it's because of...us...being there) has nothing to do with "who's doing it," it has to do with the fact that they're DEAD.

Well that's a plus for Iraqi logic. US invades so lets kill each other. That makes perfect sense. If that is the case, it really only supports the argument that Saddam was better for them.

Are you less saddened by the oklahoma bombing because an american did it?

Er no but I wasn't projecting the blame to the Fed Government, the IRS or whoever I happened to be mad at that day. I blame McVeigh and Nichols. You know, the ones who did it.

if 58 translators were kicked out for their sexual preference isn't that an abnormally high percentage of translators who are gay? or is that the real percentage of gays? the number doesn't make sense.

to the theme of this thread - ooopsy, the reason we have a memorial day is so there can be an antiwar protest .. a protest that is the antithesis of the day.. and have it allowed. if we aren't fighting for the liberties in our constitution (hey! remember 'defend the constitution against all enemies...')..then what the heck are we doing? should that be the way to measure wars and the validity thereof?

Fen: Why did we invade Afganistan? They didn't attack us. Why did we attack the Taliban? They were no threat to America. Their only sin was providing support and sanctuary to terrorist organizations. If you're going to invade Afganistan on such pretenses, why aren't you invading Iraq, Iran and Syria?

"...the war in Afghanistan, which was a necessary and unavoidable self-defense consequence of 9/11"

So the question I have for him is: you supported the invasion of Afganistan because their government was providing sanctuary to Al Queda and refused to hand him over. How can you oppose toppling the governments of other nations [like Iraq, Iran and Syria] who also harbor/support terrorists [including Al Queda].

Eli: And North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, Myanmar, Venezuela.

China and N Korea have nukes. We can't use military force to topple enablers of terrorists. Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Venezuela do not have WMD programs they can hand off to terrorists for attacks against the West. Your response is a non sequitur.

Iraq had a WMD program and ties to terrorist orginazations. Thats the combination that threatens us: rogue nation states developing WMDs like Anthrax, Ricin, Sarin to hand off to terrorists for proxy attacks against the West. Iran is a perfect example. And Syria will fall with Iran.

"China and N Korea have nukes. We can't use military force to topple those enablers of terrorists."

Nuclear proliferation changes everything. It severly limits our options. That appears to be the foreign policy of the Left: insist we shouldn't attack our enemies while they gather in strength; then later insist our enemies have grown too strong too attack

This off topic, but I thought Fen, Sloan and the rest of the right wing nutcases who post here would like to know that they have been proven dead wrong about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA...when she was outed by Cheney and the rest of the assholes:

This was released today:

By Joel SeidmanMay 29, 2007

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Meyer's ice cream is indeed otherwordly; the only place you can find better is to step onto the campus itself. I'm sure Rightwing Prof will agree."

The Creamery. I hate to be a heretic, but I make my own ice cream--though the Creamery is excellent. And I'm now a RFS (retired faculty spouse) now after several decades in Indiana, though I'm pretty bored, so that may well change.

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Lucky -- I said it once before and I will tell you again: you are too interested in getting in rhetorical jabs and in insults and in attempts at cuteness. Consequently, you never get at the substantive policy issues.

Ann,I didn't think you came up with the name "Uncle Jimbo". I just thought it was funny when you introduced us to "Uncle Jimbo". I understand that he goes by the name. I just thought it was a funny name.